chula, I’m glad you came back to clear things up a little.
I can see that someone with your POV could read Airman’s post and zero in on the issue of giving up on the arguments, particularly in view of the value you appear to place on arguing. I am sitting on the fence right now, and so have no stake in the pro-/anti-war arguments. I listen with interest until it degenerates into hair-pulling and name-calling, then I give up on you all and head over to MPSIMS. I don’t see Airman as a pro- or anti-, and perhaps that is the difference that colors how we read his post. Your statement was ambiguous enough to spark an entire thread of arguments over your meaning and intent. I took your post in his thread as a “kick ‘em when they’re down” act. I think I understand you better now, and I apologize for assuming that was your intent. Although I’m not sure what you feel is different between “wanting” to kill people and having a “sadistic impulse” to kill people.
I just don’t understand why, after reading what he has to say, you persist in such a narrow view of Airman? Did you not read his post where he pretty clearly states that he believes that war is the only option? That, though he would prefer it, he believes a peaceful solution is not possible? Can you not see the difference between wanting to fight, and being willing to fight if necessary?
Following this logic we shouldn’t have been involved in WW2, also. If Europe had just capitulated to the Germans then far less people would have been killed. I guess the same could be said for any conflict where one side is willing to use force and the other is defending itself. Less people will be killed if you capitulate to the other side.
But, why do I think we wouldn’t be posting on this board if we followed such a philosophy? Is it because those people who normally wish to take over other countries are not the sort who usually allow such things?
**
I joined the infantry (Canadian) for a number of reasons: 1. Economic - no jobs where I grew up. 2. Home situation - father was an alchoholic. 3. A book I read by Robert Heinlein, “Starship Troopers” (not the fucked up movie of the same name). In it to become a citizen you had to be willing to defend your society. The point stuck with me and at 17 years of age, with all the idealism of youth, I joined up and did my 3 years. Did that mean I wanted to kill someone? NO. It meant I was willing to do what was necessary to protect and serve my country. 20 years later I haven’t found any reason to change my opinion. Someone needs to defend your (and just as importantly my) right to speak. Sometimes that means killing others who would attempt to change that if they could. And sometimes even innocents, like idealistic 17 year olds, get hurt and killed, too.
Well, being from Canada if you went by some of the venom I read on the local news groups it would seem that is the consensus. I really love it when they say, “I don’t hate the US, I just hate their government”. That one just breaks me up to no end.
This from a country where the Senate, Judges, the Governor General, and a host of other positions are all appointed by a single person, the PM. He doesn’t have to consult anyone to do it (no Senate oversight, even if it was he appoints them anyways!). We held an election in Alberta a few years ago for our Senators in spite of him and he refused to honour the results. Great democracy we have here and apparently this is why we are so much better than you?! :eek:
This is what I joined the army to protect? :rolleyes: